基于组合赋权-TOPSIS模型的机场运行效率评价

doi:10.16182/j.issn1004731x.joss.22-0769

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

为提高机场运行效率评价结果的科学性和全面性，提出了一种基于组合赋权-TOPSIS （technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution）模型的机场运行效率评价方法。从机位运行效率、旅客登机效率、飞机滑行效率和协同效率4个维度出发，构建了由航班靠桥率、廊桥周转率、机位变更比例等11个指标组成的机场运行效率评价体系；利用G1法、熵权法分别计算评价指标主观和客观权重，以最小化主客观加权属性偏离程度为目标计算组合权重；使用TOPSIS计算待评价机场综合评价指数。利用该模型分析国内3类共8家机场的运行效率，可以得到各评价对象的运行效率等级和综合排名。结果表明：该模型能够有效探明影响机场运行效率的主要因素，具有一定的参考价值。

关键词: 运行效率评价, 组合赋权, G1法, 熵权法, TOPSIS(technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution)

Abstract:

In order to improve the scientificity and comprehensiveness of the airport operational efficiency evaluation, a new method based on the combined weighting-TOPSIS model is proposed. From 4 dimensions of stand operational efficiency, passenger boarding efficiency, aircraft taxiing efficiency, and coordination efficiency, a new airport operational efficiency evaluation system consisting of 11 indicators, such as flight approach rate, corridor bridge turnover rate, stand change ratio, etc., are constructed. G1 method and entropy weight method are implemented respectively to calculate the subjective and objective weights of the evaluation indicators, and the combined weights are calculated by minimizing the deviation of subjective and objective attributes. TOPSIS is implemented to calculate the comprehensive evaluation index of target airport. Using the proposed evaluation model, the operational efficiency analysis of 8 domestic airports in three categories is carried out, and the corresponding comprehensive operational efficiency grades and ranking list are obtained. Research results show that the proposed airport operational efficiency evaluation model can effectively identify the main factors affecting the airport operational efficiency, and has certain reference value.

Key words: operational efficiency evaluation, combined weighting, G1 method, entropy weight method, technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution(TOPSIS)

中图分类号:

TP391.9

胡杰,鲍帆 . 基于组合赋权-TOPSIS模型的机场运行效率评价[J]. 系统仿真学报, 2023, 35(12): 2570-2581.

Hu Jie,Bao Fan . Airport Operational Efficiency Evaluation Based on Combined Weighting-TOPSIS Model[J]. Journal of System Simulation, 2023, 35(12): 2570-2581.

图/表 10

图1

图2

表1

图3

表2

rk 赋值参考

r_k	r_k 赋值说明
1.0	$c k - 1 $ 与 $c k $ 同等重要
1.2	$c k - 1 $ 比 $c k $ 稍微重要
1.4	$c k - 1 $ 比 $c k $ 明显重要
1.6	$c k - 1 $ 比 $c k $ 强烈重要
1.8	$c k - 1 $ 比 $c k $ 极端重要
1.1、1.3、1.5、1.7	上述两相邻判断的中值

表2

图4

表3

表4

图5

表5

各评价机场相对接近度计算结果

评价对象	$D i +$	$D i *$	C_i	效率等级	排序
KMG	0.093 1	0.550 7	0.855 4	I	1
NKG	0.119 4	0.521 9	0.813 9	III	4
KWE	0.129 7	0.526 6	0.802 3	III	7
NGB	0.156 9	0.488 7	0.757 0	IV	8
HFE	0.115 4	0.540 6	0.824 1	II	2
JJN	0.123 9	0.547 8	0.815 5	II	3
LUM	0.124 2	0.538 8	0.812 7	III	5
DLU	0.122 3	0.527 6	0.811 9	III	6

表5

参考文献 23

1	邱超奕. 我国民航运输总周转量、旅客周转量均位居世界第二: 航线密布通全球[N]. 人民日报, 2021-10-03 (002).
2	飞常准. 2022年1月全球最繁忙机场TOP20 广州白云机场全球最准点[EB/OL]. (2022-02-25)[2022-08-09]. .
3	Gillen D, Lall A. Developing Measures of Airport Productivity and Performance: An Application of Data Envelopment Analysis[J]. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 1997, 33(4): 261-273.
4	Örkcü Hasan, Balıkçı Cemal, Mustafa Isa Dogan, et al. An Evaluation of the Operational Efficiency of Turkish Airports Using Data Envelopment Analysis and the Malmquist Productivity Index: 2009-2014 Case[J]. Transport Policy, 2016, 48: 92-104.
5	王俊丹, 曾小舟, 冯琳. 基于DEA方法的我国机场运行效率评价[J]. 华东交通大学学报, 2017, 34(6): 82-89.
	Wang Jundan, Zeng Xiaozhou, Feng Lin. Evaluation of Airport Operation Efficiency Based on DEA Method[J]. Journal of East China Jiaotong University, 2017, 34(6): 82-89.
6	丛玮, 谢道仪, 朱睿, 等. 基于可拓多层次状态分类的机场运行效率评价研究[J]. 航空计算技术, 2022, 52(2): 49-52, 57.
	Cong Wei, Xie Daoyi, Zhu Rui, et al. Research on Airport Operation Efficiency Evaluation Based on Extension Multi-level State Classification[J]. Aeronautical Computing Technique, 2022, 52(2): 49-52, 57.
7	Tan Caimao, He Junliang. Robust Airport Gate Assignment Based on the Analysis of Flight Arrival Time[J]. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2021, 2021: 6693127.
8	Jiang Yu, Hu Zhitao, Liu Zhenyu, et al. A Bilevel Programming Approach for Optimization of Airport Ground Movement[J]. Transactions of Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics, 2021, 38(5): 829-839.
9	Zha Shanshan, Guo Yu, Huang Shaohua, et al. A Hybrid MCDM Approach Based on ANP and TOPSIS for Facility Layout Selection[J]. Transactions of Nanjing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics, 2018, 35(6): 1027-1037.
10	Gu Yili, Xie Jinjie, Liu Hongji, et al. Evaluation and Analysis of Comprehensive Performance of a Brake Pedal Based on an Improved Analytic Hierarchy Process[J]. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering, 2021, 235(9): 2636-2648.
11	Dawood K A, Sharif K Y, Ghani A A, et al. Towards a Unified Criteria Model for Usability Evaluation in the Context of Open Source Software Based on a Fuzzy Delphi Method[J]. Information and Software Technology, 2021, 130: 106453.
12	Qin Yuan, Guan Ke, Kou Jialiang, et al. Durability Evaluation and Life Prediction of Fiber Concrete with Fly Ash Based on Entropy Weight Method and Grey Theory[J]. Construction and Building Materials, 2022, 327: 126918.
13	杨爱武, 李战武, 徐安, 等. 基于RS-CRITIC的空战目标威胁评估[J]. 北京航空航天大学学报, 2020, 46(12): 2357-2365.
	Yang Aiwu, Li Zhanwu, Xu An, et al. Threat Assessment of Air Combat Target Based on RS-CRITIC[J]. Journal of Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2020, 46(12): 2357-2365.
14	白丽丽, 白尚旺, 党伟超, 等. 基于离差最大化组合赋权的煤矿安全评价研究[J]. 计算机应用与软件, 2021, 38(4): 82-87.
	Bai Lili, Bai Shangwang, Dang Weichao, et al. Coal Mine Safety Assessment Based on Maximum Deviation Combination Empowerment[J]. Computer Applications and Software, 2021, 38(4): 82-87.
15	郭亚军. 综合评价理论、方法及应用[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 2007.
16	梁蕊, 赵亮. 基于G1权重法和物元分析法LNG储备站后评价[J]. 煤气与热力, 2019, 39(7): B35-B40, B46.
	Liang Rui, Zhao Liang. Post-evaluation of LNG Reserve Station Based on G1 Weighting Determination Method and Matter-element Analysis Method[J]. Gas & Heat, 2019, 39(7): B35-B40, B46.
17	Zhao Junru, Tian Jundong, Meng Fanxiang, et al. Safety Assessment Method for Storage Tank Farm Based on the Combination of Structure Entropy Weight Method and Cloud Model[J]. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 2022, 75: 104709.
18	Liu Chang, Yang Shiwu, Cui Yong, et al. An Improved Risk Assessment Method Based on a Comprehensive Weighting Algorithm in Railway Signaling Safety Analysis[J]. Safety Science, 2020, 128: 104768.
19	罗樟圳, 江海凡, 付建林, 等. 基于组合赋权的离散车间生产计划综合评价[J]. 系统仿真学报, 2021, 33(8): 1856-1865.
	Luo Zhangzhen, Jiang Haifan, Fu Jianlin, et al. Combination Weighting-based Comprehensive Evaluation for Discrete Workshop Production Plan[J]. Journal of System Simulation, 2021, 33(8): 1856-1865.
20	Cui Wenhua, Ye Jun. Improved Symmetry Measures of Simplified Neutrosophic Sets and Their Decision-making Method Based on a Sine Entropy Weight Model[J]. Symmetry, 2018, 10(6): 225.
21	胡永宏. 对TOPSIS法用于综合评价的改进[J]. 数学的实践与认识, 2002, 32(4): 572-575.
	Hu Yonghong. The Improved Method for TOPSIS in Comprehensive Evaluation[J]. Mathematics in Practice and Theory, 2002, 32(4): 572-575.
22	Niu Dongxiao, Wu Gengqi, Ji Zhengsen, et al. Evaluation of Provincial Carbon Neutrality Capacity of China Based on Combined Weight and Improved TOPSIS Model[J]. Sustainability, 2021, 13(5): 2777.
23	百度文库. 机场运行效率分析报告[EB/OL]. [2022-08-29]. .

指标等级	优	良	一般	较差	差
航班靠桥率/%	80≤u₁₁≤100	70≤u₁₁<80	60≤u₁₁<70	50≤u₁₁<60	u₁₁<50
廊桥周转率/架次	u₁₂≥7	6≤u₁₂<7	5≤u₁₂<6	4≤u₁₂<5	u₁₂<4
机位变更比例/%	u₁₃≤15	15<u₁₃≤20	20<u₁₃≤25	25<u₁₃≤30	u₁₃>30
机位变更提前时长/min	u₁₄≥240	180≤u₁₄<240	150≤u₁₄<180	90≤u₁₄<150	u₁₄<90
登机口变更比例/%	u₂₁≤15	15<u₂₁≤25	25<u₂₁≤35	35<u₂₁≤45	u₂₁>45
登机口变更提前时长/min	u₂₂≥240	180≤u₂₂<240	150≤u₂₂<180	90≤u₂₂<150	u₂₂<90
单位旅客登机时长/s	u₂₃≤15	15<u₂₃≤20	20<u₂₃≤25	25<u₂₃≤30	u₂₃>30
旅客登机等待时长/min	u₂₄≤10	10<u₂₄≤15	15<u₂₄≤20	20<u₂₄≤25	u₂₄>25
航班滑入时长/min	u₃₁≤6	6<u₃₁≤12	12<u₃₁≤18	18<u₃₁≤24	u₃₁>24
航班滑出时长/min	u₃₂≤12	12<u₃₂≤18	18<u₃₂≤24	24<u₃₂≤30	u₃₂>30
预计到达时间准确度/%	90≤u₄₁≤100	85≤u₄₁<90	80≤u₄₁<85	75≤u₄₁<80	u₄₁<75

指标	正负性	原始数据
指标	正负性	KMG	NKG	KWE	NGB	HFE	JJN	LUM	DLU
u₁₁	+	86.7	77.9	72.9	37.1	94.9	96.1	100.0	81.9
u₁₂	+	6	7	5	5	5	6	4	7
u₁₃	–	14.9	37.9	19.2	42.9	33.9	2.1	25.5	19.1
u₁₄	+	198.98	128.17	96.75	141.98	187.99	106.85	160.35	70.89
u₂₁	–	15.7	49.7	7.5	39.9	25.4	3.6	23.0	26.9
u₂₂	+	369.89	264.81	122.01	149.99	179.56	82.59	143.59	185.99
u₂₃	–	9.2	8.8	6.8	8.8	8.6	7.6	8.3	8.6
u₂₄	–	20.01	20.51	13.79	19.19	10.29	15.01	12.99	14.51
u₃₁	–	8.89	7.99	7.49	12.59	7.01	26.59	22.19	7.49
u₃₂	–	17.99	16.88	19.84	10.41	12.89	38.13	11.63	14.15
u₄₁	+	94.6	95.4	72.7	91.6	93.9	96.1	79.1	43.3

指标	主观权重α_j	客观权重β_j	组合权重w_j
u₁₁	0.272	0.057	0.142
u₁₂	0.140	0.088	0.109
u₁₃	0.087	0.106	0.098
u₁₄	0.057	0.095	0.080
u₂₁	0.127	0.081	0.099
u₂₂	0.042	0.125	0.092
u₂₃	0.019	0.132	0.087
u₂₄	0.059	0.131	0.104
u₃₁	0.029	0.074	0.056
u₃₂	0.087	0.054	0.067
u₄₁	0.081	0.057	0.066

[1]	张莉, 张惠珍, 刘冬, 陆雨欣. 考虑紧迫度的应急物资调度及粒子群算法求解[J]. 系统仿真学报, 2022, 34(09): 1988-1998.
[2]	王艳, 丁宇. 动态柔性作业车间优化调度与决策方法[J]. 系统仿真学报, 2020, 32(11): 2073-2083.
[3]	陈莉, 张海侠. 基于熵权-云模型的我国绿色智慧城市评价[J]. 系统仿真学报, 2019, 31(1): 136-144.
[4]	蔡舒妤, 师利中. 基于边界网格梯度的机体损伤划分评价方法[J]. 系统仿真学报, 2018, 30(7): 2729-2735.